User talk:2601:155:8300:1659:2D6E:AD12:F4B5:FBCF

{unblock|I was blocked for 31hours. I served that block. drmies blocked me further /again not exactly sure while I was under the initial block and did not tell me. I have tried to speak with drmies. I would like to submit for 3rd party review or an ANI but cannot due to drmies stopping me. Thank You. I will not edit Ross Mathews. I know this is lengthy but please read. I would like to be a part of this wikipedia

Blocked for edit warring, using unreliable sources, failure to discuss proposed changes, false claims of harassment and vandalism. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I will not edit Ross Mathews. The article is not good now and I guess it shall remain like that. 1) Edit warring: I have read the definition of this and see how I violated it. 2) Using unreliable sources: I disagree. The sources I used are ... article : https://parade.com/26099/erinhill/ross-mathews-from-farm-town-to-hollywood his book:  Man Up!: Tales of My Delusional Self-Confidence article: https://www.desertsun.com/story/life/entertainment/television/2017/09/19/ross-mathews-and-salvador-camarena-make-steve-harvey-proud-celebrity-family-feud/683187001 his social media: https://www.instagram.com/p/BCPGhpKxRSy https://twitter.com/helloross/status/979604032154054656? https://twitter.com/helloross/status/407704627665436672 https://twitter.com/helloross/status/906767329366646784 https://twitter.com/helloross/status/906767329366646784 . . . Thus printed media, a published book, and his twitter are all lousy sources? I see these sources throughout wikip.

3) Failure to discuss proposed changes: I disagree. I posted to fligttime, flighttime refused to discuss [dialogue attempt 1]...

[dialogue attempt 2]... [dialogue attempt 3]... [dialogue attempt 4]...

[dialogue attempt 5] so the article could be made better and flighttime just deleted my posts.

4)False claims of harassment: I disagree. I asked flighttime about the edits and flighttime did not answer me. But when I asked for help and was interacting with another here comes flighttime saying "protect me", and you side with it flighttime and say I am harrassing and stalking! I asked flightttime to stop posting to me as it ignored me when I asked it about  the sources. Flighttime chose to not respond when I was asking about content for article so should maintain that silence and not be  on my page warning me and crying please help me when I am interacting with another.

drmies you say you need proof/evidence, okay here it what I experienced: You drmies accusing me of being Bigshowandkane64 Yamla accused me of being " a currently active LTA who targets Drmies and frequently mentions McShittles" and blocked me. Flighttime reverted and did not use talk page. Flighttime refused to respond to my writings on talk page I was insulted by Ponyo saying I cannot comprehend An onslaught of others on my ass [ ponyo lourdes rickbaltimore] who kept saying I was wrong because I did not discuss when I did. The onslaught is why I feel flighttime asked friends to support it (crowdsourcing, canvassing) and they did. This article had no interest and all of of a sudden has alot, but it isnt about the article it is solely about me. Even now, has any of them ponyo flightime lourdes rickbaltimore worked on the article? No. Cfred did and was reverted! (and those who reverted Cfred did not post on on talk page!).

5) Vandalism: This is the first I am hearing of this. What did I vandalise ?

I served the 31hour block but you then changed it, and didnt tell me, and added new accusations. ___You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia. You are still able to view pages, but you are not currently able to edit, move, or create them. Editing from 2601:155:8300:1659:0:0:0:0/64 has been blocked (disabled) by Drmies for the following reason(s): Vandalism: disruptive editing, edit warring, false accusations, tendentious editing on BLPs with lousy sources, etc This block has been set to expire: 15:08, 11 August 2018.___ 1)Disuptive editing: See above 2)Edit waring : See above 3)False accusations: see above 4)Tendentious editing on BLPs with lousy sources What controversial point of view was I pushing? That Ross is from Mount Vernon Washington? That he has a mother, brother, and nephew who he repeatedly shares are his support system? That he is very close to his brother and newphew because his father died ? That his partner of 10yrs is Salvatore ?

5)The sources I added were not lousy, see above.

Wikipedia says to assume good faith; to be civil. I feel my first edit good faith was not assumed. I then reacted bad and my reaction of "you are trying to increase your edit count" was uncivil. It was repeated reverting of me with no efforts by flighttiime to actually edit the article, so I felt like it flighttime thought it had ownership of the article. Then the onslaught of flighttime's friends via crowdsouricng and canvassing further weighed on me. Cfred said I should have warned, I didnt know that I could do that. I thought that was something admins only do.

Drmies, I see now I should not have kept reverting. In the midst of it I did not see that. What I saw was repeated reverts but not once did flighttime, did ponyo, did rickinbaltimore, did lourdes look at my edits, correct them or expand them. Only Cfred did. And then Lourdes rverted Cfred ! That is why I feel there was canvassing and crowdsourcing. You drmies have wwritten against ownership, I think that may have happened here. (flighttime called in reinforcements and was being attacked/reverted/called out over and over and over and over); and now you & yamla are blocking me and accusing me of being others.

Drmies you wrote this but I feel didnt give me this benefit of doubt, assume good faith. I have tried to speak with you drmies but I think you have bias against me based on actions/writings.

Vanamonde said this: __Far more drama is caused by an unwillingness to let things go and to agree to disagree, than by occasional intemperate language.__ but not for me? .

Thank You for reading. 2601:155:8300:1659:2D6E:AD12:F4B5:FBCF (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2018 (UTC) )
 * While I can't really follow this request, I can say that this user is correct in his/her comments about me. To clarify, I refused an earlier unblock request and revoked talk page access, for an IP address. This was because I mistakenly thought this person was a long-term vandal. Upon further inspection, this was a mistake, my mistake. I have no reason to believe this person is that long-term vandal. I have no idea about anything else this user says. --Yamla (talk) 10:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank You Yamla. You said you dont follow this request and have no idea aboout anythng else this user says. Did you read my request? Is it confusing? Does my answer here address the unblock? What is a LTA? 2601:155:8300:1659:2D6E:AD12:F4B5:FBCF (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a long, rambling wall of text - simpler and shorter is going to be a lot more helpful. You probably should review the guide to appealing blocks., what do you make of this? SQL Query me!  18:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC)